European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Why we are in Afghanistan

by Jerome a Paris
Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:01:02 AM EST

While we're being told that our governments are broke and must reduce payments to pensioners, the unemployed and other beneficiaries of our "unsustainable" social model, tens of billions continue to be spent for a pointless and lost war in Afghanistan. Very little debate is taking place as to whether that money is usefully spent.

The Economist has kindly decided to fill in the gap and tell up why that war matters:

Were so much not at stake, it would be tempting to give up and call the troops home. Yet, although Western leaders have done a poor job at explaining the war in Afghanistan to their voters, a defeat there would be a disaster. The narrow aim of denying al-Qaeda a haven, already frustrated by the terrorists’ scope to lodge in unruly parts of northern Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, would become impossible to achieve. A Western withdrawal would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to a civil war that might suck in the local powers, including Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia. Sooner or later, the poison would end up harming America too: it always does. Defeat in Afghanistan would mark a humiliation for the West, and for NATO, that would give succour to its foes in the world. And do not forget the Afghan people. Having invaded their country, the West has a duty to return it to them in a half-decent state.

Other than hints of that old chestnut, the domino theory used to justify Vietnam, and claims that it would be even worse for Afghanis without the burdened white man around, I can basically summarize as "it'll look like we lost."

How do we pull the plug? How do we get the Serious People to admit that they were wrong and f'd up?

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Why we are in Afghanistan | 92 comments (92 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

The narrow aim of denying al-Qaeda a haven, already frustrated by the terrorists' scope to lodge in unruly parts of northern Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, would become impossible to achieve.

What a lawyer's wording. The "terrorists' scope to lodge in unruly parts of northern Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia" means that denying al-Qaeda a haven by military means already proved impossible.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:10:27 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

What I'm still waiting for is a compelling reason to keep going after al Qaeda at all.

I mean, aside from their big gig in 2001, they've been pretty much harmless as long as you don't deliberately send soldiers into their home turf.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

Also I still haven't figured out why exactly they are supposed to need training camps. Reminds me of the cave Pentagon the US was convinced was in Cambodia.

Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.

by generic on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

Well, obviously they must have camps. After all, the kind of enemy the NATO military is designed to fight has a logistics train, and camps are part of a logistics train. So they must have camps, because otherwise we wouldn't know how to fight them. See?

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 6)

I still haven't figured out why exactly they are supposed to need training camps

They need to ensure a continual and fresh supply of al-Qaeda No. 3.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:41:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 7)

Well from what I've seen all there effective training was done in Florida for that gig, so maybe we should do something like release oil all over it and set it on fire.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're being flippant and naive (none / 0)

There's not the slightest doubt that AQ would commit effective terror attacks if it could. They have been harmless since 2001, not because they have become nice guys since then, but because they have been unable to put together a viable operation on any scale. In large part, that's because they have trouble running training camps (yes, you need training camps to train terrorists. And what you get with untrained terrorists is the Times Square non-bombing. The bombing that bombed.)

Honest to god, I don't want to sound like anybody's shill, but it really doesn't help to wear rose tinted glasses. The fact is that the successful AQ operations since 2001 (Madrid and London metro principally) have not been done by the AQ core, but by local franchises with no operational chain of command to the OBL gang. That's because the core are locked down and unable to act.

Anti-terrorism does a lot of collateral damage -- freedom of movement being a major one -- but it's a mistake to believe that it's unnecessary.

Of course, all this has practically nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan, which I oppose and have always opposed.

=========
Re-reading your post, Jake, it's possible that what you are talking about is that there are no longer US troops in Saudi Arabia, which was OBL's original casus belli. You may be claiming that there have been no big AQ attacks since 2001 because the USA appeased him by withdrawing their troops. In which case, my rant is superfluous, but I think you're wrong.

by eurogreen on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 06:52:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're being flippant and naive (none / 1)

There's not the slightest doubt that AQ would commit effective terror attacks if it could.

But they don't, so they can't.

And it's not because of our sterling intelligence work in rounding up political refugees and deporting them to war zones.

They have been harmless since 2001, not because they have become nice guys since then,

Never talked about 'nice guys.' They're not. But they just aren't that many, and they just aren't that competent, and their home turf is half a continent away.

but because they have been unable to put together a viable operation on any scale.

Any moderately intelligent high school student can cook up a bomb in his bathtub, and I can point you to the first ten good sabotage targets just in Copenhagen alone, ranked in order of expected loss of life, expected property damage or expected media fuss, your pick.

If there actually were a teeming horde out there whose sole ambition in life were to make life as miserable as possible for as many white people as possible, it's not like they'd have a hard time doing it. But they don't, so there isn't.

The fact is that the successful AQ operations since 2001 (Madrid and London metro principally)

... have totalled what? five hundred dead? Maximum. That's in the neighbourhood of one week's traffic fatalities in the European Union alone, nevermind the US. If you moved all exurb to city centre commuter traffic from car to rail, you'd save more lives for less money and without all the police state crap either.

For that matter, it's an order of magnitude and a half less than the annual number of ordinary, non-terrorist murders - in other words, you have about forty times the risk of being murdered by a distraught ex, an angry landlord or a random junkie compared to the risk of being murdered by a terrorist.

have not been done by the AQ core, but by local franchises with no operational chain of command to the OBL gang. That's because the core are locked down and unable to act.

Or because the core was never actually able to act in Europe or the US in any effective way.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 07:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're being flippant and naive (none / 0)

eurogreen:

there are no longer US troops in Saudi Arabia, which was OBL's original casus belli. You may be claiming that there have been no big AQ attacks since 2001 because the USA appeased him by withdrawing their troops

As far as casus belli goes, waging war on other Muslim countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan compensates for withdrawing the troops in Saudi Arabia.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:29:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're being flippant and naive (none / 1)

They have been harmless since 2001, not because they have become nice guys since then, but because they have been unable to put together a viable operation on any scale.

...or because they see no need to, given that the USA is still spectacularly overreacting to the previous one, still in the thrall of fearmongering at home and militaristic overextension abroad, wasting treasure and creating new enemies by the day...

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 11:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Six Words (4.00 / 2)

They hate us for our freedom!

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:16:32 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Although I lived through the "Viet Nam era" I was too busy with college etc. to pay attention to politics without the internet. Someone said recently on one of the news programs that the Viet Nam War was forced to end because Congress defunded it. Was that true? Could it happen today with the current level of corporate influence? I think not. We're there indefinitely.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:17:04 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

The economy was turning bad, the Army was disintegrating into a mob, ending the draft turned off the fresh flow of cannon fodder, and the capitalists were finding their profits were going south.

Oh, and the American people had turned against the war.

If you never fail, you're not trying hard enough.

by ATinNM on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 11)

It's much more complex than that.

We should think of the 35-year long Vietnam War as having distinct phases:

Phase 1, 1940-45: Viet Minh organized to fight Japanese occupation, with OSS (forerunner of CIA) training and money

Phase 2, 1945-50: Viet Minh declare independence, US rejects this, so Viet Minh fights war against French reconquest

Phase 3, 1950-54: French cannot sustain war effort, so US steps in to fund it. France tries to create puppet regime centered on Saigon under Vietnamese emperor Bao Dai, effort fails in wake of Dien Bien Phu

Phase 4, 1954-61: Post-Korean War US in little mood to take over fighting from France, so they decide to prop up the Saigon puppet regime, but under Ngo Dinh Diem instead, seen as a pliable and reliable anti-Communist. Resistance in south to regime and desire for reunification leads to formation of NLF, with tacit support from Hanoi

Phase 5, 1961-65: Kennedy sees Diem regime is weak, has no popular support, and facing NLF (known to Americans as the Viet Cong) insurgency. Decides to increase US commitment, both in terms of troops and money, but prefers Saigon regime do the fighting. Diem removed in 1963 coup, Saigon regime nearly collapses, Johnson panics and engineers Congressional authorization to send in US combat forces

Phase 6, 1965-70: The "Vietnam War" as known by most Americans, the era when over 500,000 US combat forces were fighting the NLF - and often the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and losing. Johnson eventually saw the illogic to this and wanted peace. Nixon was elected in 1968 to wind down the combat troop commitment but preserve US presence in Vietnam.

Phase 7, 1970-73: What Nixon called "Vietnamization", essentially a return to the pre-1965 policy of making the Saigon regime fight its own battles with US money and material, and some US combat support. US troops withdrawn in 1973 but there was a guarantee they would return if the Saigon regime were ever in mortal danger.

Phase 8, 1973-75: Collapse of Saigon regime. Nixon tied down at home by Watergate and was out of office by the time the final Communist offensive against the Saigon regime was launched in late 1974. Liberals won the '74 Congressional election (the "Watergate babies") and thus had the political power to block Gerald Ford's desire to fund a mission to intervene and save Saigon regime. This is the "defunding" Twank is thinking about, although there had been some earlier defundings, with the Rubicon being crossed in 1970 when Congress moved to defund US combat operations in Cambodia.

For our purposes, the key question is "how did the shift from Phase 6 to Phases 7 and 8 occur and how can we do it again?"

The answer isn't easy. Some want to argue that the antiwar movement did it. They surely played some role in driving up the political cost of the US combat commitment, but the Tet Offensive of 1968 and the almost universal conclusion of the DC political and military elite that major, endless combat commitment was a failure probably played the bigger role in causing the shift from Phase 6 to Phase 7.

The shift from Phase 7 to Phase 8 took place in the wake of the invasion of Cambodia in April 1970, which caused the US public to turn against US combat commitment entirely. Nixon was discredited, Republicans lost the 1970 Congressional elections, and by 1971 there was a clear political shift demanding a winding down of the US combat commitment. From there it was not difficult - nor was it easy - to move to defunding US support for the Saigon regime, especially in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and public skepticism of executive abuses of power.

We cannot forget the underlying factors that drove all this. To the extent antiwar protest was successful, it was because it came from two major political movements that had already demonstrated success in determining the outcome of US policy and already had considerable power in the 1960s: the labor movement and the Civil Rights movement. All antiwar organizing came from one or the other, though raw recruits to the movement came from a variety of places. Without that background, antiwar protest in the 1960s and 1970s would have been as successful as it was in other times in US history - that is, not very successful at all.

The argument that has to be presented is that the war is unwinnable and it is pointless to continue. We are probably at that point now with Afghanistan. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the US public, or those in other NATO countries with troops on the ground, will much care if we return to a 1989-92 policy of trying to prop up a favored regime with some money but no troops, even at an enormous civilian cost.

But as geezer in Paris rightly realizes, antiwar activism will not change the underlying factors that produced this long clusterfuck unless it is rooted in a much broader effort to change some fundamental pieces of global politics, economics, and social values.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 01:57:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 8)

European Tribune - Whe we are in Afghanistan

A Western withdrawal would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to a civil war that might suck in the local powers, including Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia.

They mean Afghanistan hasn't been embroiled in a civil war for 35 years already, sucking in the local powers such as Pakistan and Russia?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:32:37 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

It's not a civil war unless the West is involved.

I think the Econo is slipping. Usually their propaganda is sort-of plausible, if you're a bit dim and not prone to thinking.

But this piece is risible, in a literal laugh-out-loud kind of a way.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

European Tribune - Whe we are in Afghanistan

How do we pull the plug? How do we get the Serious People to admit that they were wrong and f'd up?

They can't admit they've fucked up on the Global Financial Crisis (though I prefer the acronym GCF for Great Clusterfuck).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:33:54 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

But they didn't fuck up on the financial crisis.

The bonuses are still making new records.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Precisely (none / 0)

but then my question was probably a bit loaded...

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

What is the alternative to staying the course, so to speak?

Obviously, on NATO's withdrawal, the Taliban will return, soon retake the south, eventually the north, and the theocracy of old will be back with us, with religious police again roaming the streets of cities and towns all over Afganistan. Al Qaeda wins.

We will have come full circle. It's a conundrum.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 08:47:00 AM EST

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

You continue to labour under the delusion that the alternative to the Taliban is any less undesirable. They may not have been nominally theocratic, but they were every bit as islamist as the Taliban, having originated from the Muyahedeen of the 1980's.

And Karzai's afghanistan is not some paragon of women's freedom either.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Wrong. I think that some approximation to democractic rule is superior to autocratic theocracy. Woman's rights suffer in most Muslim countries, extremely so in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, less so in places like Turkey, which is making strides. But for Afganistan to be given back to the Taliban and its theocracy is a step backward, one which may eventually destabilize Pakistan.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

But in Turkey, much of the guarantee of Womens rights is undermined by democracy

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 10:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

I'm not sure I buy that line completely. The Turkish military doesn't precisely have a spotless human rights record.

It would be interesting to see what Erdogan would look like if he didn't have the generals breathing down his neck, but my impression is that he sold out and became a third-wayer in order to be considered Serious and fit to govern. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking, because I'd like that dynamic to work in our favour once in a while...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 10:26:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 6)

Here you are wrong. There is no democracy in Afghanistan. There is not even an approximation of it.

Votes may be cast, but that is but theatre for the entertainment of foreigners.

But we have had this discussion in previous diaries and you continue to assert that the current situation is superior and more progressive than under the taliban/al Qaeda. If the West had come in during 2002 and immediately began re-instating the civil infrastructure of Iraq and supporting that with a proper justice system that people could believe in then I might have a different view.

But we didn't. In fact, if there hadn't already been a book written on how not to bring about peace and justice to a conquered country then a diary of what was done in Afghanistan would probably do the job. And now it is too late. Nothing we can do now will change the dynamic we set in train, we screwed up and everyone there is paying the price. and all we are left with is Cromwell's valediction;-

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 10:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

The reality facing Obama: OpEd from the NYT.

And I think it is right on. The opposition is seemingly willing to stick its head in the sand about the future of Afganistan under the Taliban. It seems that today, they are okay, and better than the occupation. So give Afganistan back to the Taliban.

Failure promises to trap us; success is our only ticket out.
Why? Because of three considerations. First, the memory of 9/11, which ensures that any American president will be loath to preside over the Taliban's return to power in Kabul. Second, the continued presence of Al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan's northwest frontier, which makes it difficult for any American president to contemplate giving up the base for counterterrorism operations that Afghanistan affords. Third, the larger region's volatility: it's the part of the world where the nightmare of nuclear-armed terrorists is most likely to become a reality, so no American president can afford to upset the balance of power by pulling out and leaving a security vacuum behind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28douthat.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytim es.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp

And whoever said that Afganistan has a democracy? Approximations, perhaps even a corrupt democracy that in any case only affects the north. Tribalism still reigns in the south.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 10:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

shergald:

Approximations, perhaps even a corrupt democracy that in any case only affects the north. Tribalism still reigns in the south.

What affects the North is warlordism and occupation.

This is what Afghanistan was like before the Taliban, under our erstwhile friends the Muyahedeen later known as the Northern Alliance:

History of Afghanistan since 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

in May 1992, Rabbani prematurely formed the leadership council, undermining Mojaddedi's fragile authority. On June 28, 1992, Mojaddedi surrendered power to the Leadership Council, which then elected Rabbani as President. Nonetheless, heavy fighting broke out in August 1992 in Kabul between forces loyal to President Rabbani and rival factions, particularly those who supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami. After Rabbani extended his tenure in December 1992, fighting in the capital flared up in January and February 1993. The Islamabad Accord, signed in March 1993, which appointed Hekmatyar as Prime Minister, failed to have a lasting effect. A follow-up agreement, the Jalalabad Accord, called for the militias to be disarmed but was never fully implemented. Through 1993, Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami forces, allied with the Shi'a Hezb-i-Wahdat militia, clashed intermittently with Rabbani and Massoud's Jamiat forces. Cooperating with Jamiat were militants of Sayyaf's Ittehad-i-Islami and, periodically, troops loyal to ethnic Uzbek strongman Abdul Rashid Dostam. On January 1, 1994, Dostam switched sides, precipitating large scale fighting in Kabul and in northern provinces, which caused thousands of civilian casualties in Kabul and elsewhere and created a new wave of displaced persons and refugees. The country sank even further into anomie, forces loyal to Rabbani and Masud, both ethnic Tajiks, controlled Kabul and much of the northeast, while local warlords exerted power over the rest of the country.

Anomie, warlordism, internecine warfare, internally displaced populations...

Which explains the rise of the Taliban:

In reaction to the warlordism prevalent in the country, and the lack of Pashtun representation in the Kabul government, a movement arose called the Taliban. Many Taliban had been educated in madrasas in Pakistan and were largely from rural Pashtun backgrounds. This group was made up of mostly Pashtuns that dedicated itself to removing the warlords, providing law and order, and imposing the strict Islamic Sharia law on the country. In 1994 it developed enough strength to capture the city of Kandahar from a local warlord and proceeded to expand its control throughout Afghanistan, occupying Herat in September 1995, then Kabul in September 1996, and declaring the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (although there was no Emir). By this time Afghanistan was in its 17th year of war. It had the highest infant, child and maternal mortality rates in Asia. An estimated 10 million landmines covered its terrain. Two-million refugees were in camps.

Why anyone would believe the current faction being propped up by foreign intervention is any better is beyond me, especially in light of things like

Afghanistan: Law Curbing Women's Rights Takes Effect | Human Rights Watch

Afghanistan's influential international supporters should insist that President Hamid Karzai act to amend the notorious law that formalizes discrimination against Shia women, Human Rights Watch said today.
Human Rights Watch learned today that the amended bill was published in the official Gazette on July 27, 2009 (Gazette 988), bringing the law into force.
"Karzai has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "So much for any credentials he claimed as a moderate on women's issues."

I mean, that The West™ is in Afghanistan to fight for women's liberation is as much of a lie now as it was when Laura Bush was trotted out to sell the propaganda in 2001. As for warlordism, I believe it is still alive and well in the ISAF-"controlled" areas.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 12:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Your view then is that the return of the law and order Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban control) is preferable to a return of the warlordism that prevailed after the Russians departed.

In all likelihood, the Taliban will again, as before, prevail in the Pushtun regions, mainly in the south, and that the Tajiks will again unite into something like the Northern Alliance to defeat them.

And we will be back to where we started.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 12:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

Hey, stop it with the White Man's burden shit. It is not our job to bring modernity to brutal uncivilised swarthy skinned natives.

That's called cultural imperialism and we're Really Freaking Bad at it.

If only we could set a good example of high minded peaceful co-existence then people might be more interested in listening to us. But "white man speak with forked tongue" is just as true as it ever was and people have stopped listening to our lectures about how to be civilised cos they can see up close and personal that we're the most savage, unprincipled and barbaric people they've heard of.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 12:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Yeah. But you damned well know that the US, if only to save face, will not allow the Taliban, host of the Al Qaeda training camps, and OBL himself, to succeed to regaining control of Afganistan.

This fact is what we have to live with and it is essential that we speak within this understanding.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

al Qaeda and OBL couldn't give a monkeys about the Taliban. they have upped and gone far away, be it to Waziristan, Yemen, Somalia or wherever. They are not an army and they do not hold territory.

Whoever it is that thinks they're part of it can set up a training camp wherever and whenever they can find a place to be left alone for a year or two. After all, we all know that, thanks to the mess we keep inflicting on various parts of the world so's we can extract minerals cheaply, there's a sufficient number of those to keep several terrorist organisations in cheap AK-47s and IEDs for decades.

The US didn't like it when the British were talking to the Taliban so it got stopped. So now the US wants to talk to the Taliban, but Karzai said he doesn't like that, so it stopped. Now he's talking to them instead. so the duplicity continues.

But of course the Taliban is not a monolithic construct, but simply a group of loosely associated troublemakers and ne'er do wells who find occasional common cause. If someone makes them a better offer, then they'll listen. That's the current idea, find the not so bad Taliban and move them onto "our" side. The alliances you make depend on what you're trying to achieve and I'm still not convinced we have a clue about the differences between the good that's achievable and a the politically perfect "victory".

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

Training camps are nice if you're a terrorist, but not essential. A luxury for the bosses. The IRA used underground firing ranges built in slightly isolated areas in Ireland for weapons training. Or enlisted in the British or Irish army and let them do the training and provide the facilities. Oh, there was a period where the libyans helped out, but that was optional.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

Indeed the ~~Vietnamisation~~, er, ~~Iraqisation resp. Afghani-isation~~, uhm, the "training of local forces" which the ah so wise Western leaders think is the way to go to avoid sending more own soldiers and letting more of them die did and does nothing but pour oil on the fire. Whether the Taliban or the Northern Alliance and Taliban-independent Pashtun warlords, this Western approach only serves as a supply line of men and weapons.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Al Qaeda is what brought us into Afganistan in the first place. The Taliban hosted OBL and his mob and that's enough for us. The friend of our enemy is our enemy.

Don't expect any change on the ground until after the 2012 presidential election. You can blow wind from here to eternity, but nothing of significance will happen until after that election. Then it won't matter what we do. Have you ever engaged in dumpster diving?

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

The friend of our enemy is our enemy.

So why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded? Or the border regions of Pakistan? Etc etc...

This is like Israel talking about Lebanon.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:51:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

This is America: our commitment to cheap gas, no matter what!.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 07:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

It's a no-win situation and there are no obvious good guys. You seem to think "we started" in 2001 whereas for the Afghans it's been a clusterfuck since the mid-70's and it's not "our" country to decide where "we started" but theirs.

The West has been fighting the Great Game in Central Asia since the 1820s. About time we stopped killing afghans in the name of who knows what. The rationale keeps shifting, the war is the same.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 12:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Well look at what is happening in Iraq as an example of what Petreus will bring to Afganistan. Democracy uber alles.

All he had to do was to kick the Sunnis out of Bagdad, which he supervised, and all went quiet. I said it a long time ago that I agree with the partitioners. Split the oil revenues and live separately in Iraq I, Iraq II, and Kurdistan. In afganistan, will something like that work: Pashtuns and Tajiks in different perhaps conferderated states. We have it here today in the US: what New Englander gives a fuck about Texas, and vice versus. All those bastards are worried about are guns and niggers in their mist, still, four decades after the Civil Rights Act went into law. They never forgot the Civil War, and are still fighting it.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Partitions of population (and the resettlement it contains) generally tend to fuel future conflicts. India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey are examples.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

It is happening nonetheless.

Look everywhere, and it is always about ethnocentricism or some of its versions, and it stands at the bottom of every conflict known today.

Oh how about Bandgladesh? I know about Greece-Turkey annoyances, but a conflict? There are really too few circumstances to draw conclusions. But you are still partially correct; conflict is not inevitable in all cases.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

Greece and Turkey has been close to shooting wars in recent history. And they are part of the same military alliance.

Aegean dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term Aegean dispute refers to a set of interrelated controversial issues between Greece and Turkey over sovereignty and related rights in the area of the Aegean Sea. This set of conflicts has had a large effect on Greek-Turkish relations since the 1970s. It has twice led to crises coming close to the outbreak of military hostilities, in 1987 and in early 1996.

I do not know much about Bangladesh, so if wikipedia has it wrong I would not know, but this is what I found:

Partition of Bengal (1947) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second partition of Bengal left behind a legacy of violence which continues to this day. As Bashabi Fraser put it, "There is the reality of the continuous flow of `economic migrants' / `refugees' / `infiltrators' / `illegal immigrants' who cross over the border and pan out across the sub-continent, looking for work and a new home, setting in metropolitan centres as far off as Delhi and Mumbai, keeping the question of the Partition alive today. "

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Hunger is a motivator. I don't blame the Bangladeshi for doing what they have to do to survive. Bangladesh is a desparately impoverished nation.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

I think everyone understands that the Northern ALliance was holding the fort in 2001, when the Great One appeared with bombs, and sent the Taliban running.

Is it significant that we (Clinton) didn't give a shit about Afganistan, except to drop a few cruise missles on a few Al Qaeda training camps in the 90s after the African embassy bombings.

Still, nobody answers the question: what happens to Afganistan when the NATO troops leave, some wanting it right now, yesterday?

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What happens to Afghanistan? (none / 1)

Same as with Congo, Palestine, Iraq, etc... : nobody will care anymore, because nobody will talk about it anymore.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happens to Afghanistan? (none / 0)

And the US media will help in this endeavor, repeating the daily line from government sources or not. But here in the US, Afganistan is a topic seen daily on the news, even competing with the Gulf Spill for headlines, so that it is not yet a quiet to-be-ignored topic.

Except for British public which has 10K soldiers fighting over there, and might get daily reports on their safety, other European countries are probably disinterested, perhaps tired of it.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

what happens to Afganistan when the NATO troops leave

The same as is happening now, under the watch (and partial participation) of NATO troops: bloodshed, dark ages. You are pleading for a contrast here that exists only in US propaganda.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

More examples of how your beloved Northern Alliance are not "good guys":
Northern Alliance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human rights abuses
Much criticism has been leveled against the United Islamic Front for alleged breaches of human rights, by both Afghan and international groups, such as the Dasht-i-Leili massacre, which spawned the documentary Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death. The influence allied warlords have in their territories where they make their own, often draconian, laws is one factor. Human Rights Watch has released documents alleging internal displacement and executions, widespread rape, arbitrary arrests and "disappearances" targeted against the civilian population.^[5] [edit]
Drugs
While the Taliban have been most commonly criticized for their perceived role in the cultivation and distribution of opium, areas controlled by the Northern Alliance have also been responsible for the cultivation of opium. A 2001 U.N. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention study found that, following a Taliban ban on opium cultivation, opium production in Afghanistan had dropped 91 percent in 2001, even though the country had earlier accounted for 71 percent of the world supply. However, opium production in Northern Alliance-controlled areas remained stable.^[6]

Unless you believe opium-financed warlordism is a better societal outcome in Afghanistan than coca-fuelled mafia warfare is in Mexico or Colombia.

Personally, I think we might do them a favour if we legalised opium derivatives - the farmers could make a living and the criminals wouldn't have an incentive to wage war over the cropland.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 01:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

There's plenty of legal use for opium derivatives in the medical sector. But that market has been cornered by Australian producers, so we'd have to find them something else to do if we displace them with Afghan poppies...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 01:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

As I suggested above. You have no problem with the return of the Taliban, which you conjure up to be the lesser of two evils.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:10:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

There is no lesser of two evils, there is a clusterfuck.

And on the historical record, large swathes of the Afghan population thought the Taliban were the lesser of two evils in 1996. maybe by 2001 they had changed their mind and I have no clue what they think now.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

Who said Afghanistan has a democracy ? You did.

As for that op-ed; oh dear. Where to begin ? The major problem is that it simply doesn't define what victory entails ? As Petraus asked, "what's the end-point ?"

Right now it's "we're there because we're there because we're there.." and all justifications flow backwards. But you need something going forward.

Yes, there is the possibilities of nuclear armed terrorists but.. what on earth has anything they're doing in Afghanistan got to do with solving that problem ? How does it relate ? Especially given that most of the things they have done in the middle east in the last decade have actually made the probability of such problems much much more likely.

Yes the region is volatile. Who the f... made it that way ? And our every activity while we're there makes it worse. We are not preserving peace, we are not preventing chaos, we are simply prolonging the agony. I am not callous, I don't want to abandon these people. It grieves me that we have done this to them with our Great Game. But we have and there is no undoing any of it and everything we do while we are there just makes things worse. So let's go. not because we are turning our back on them, it is simply the kindest thing we can do.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 12:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Who made it that way? It was that way before we ever got there.

My final sentiment on this insoluable situation: there is a god damned good reason why Bush went into hiding after the last pres election. But Bush, who dropped the ball to wage Israel's war for them, is no excuse to turn our backs on what we started. At the time, it was a good thing. That nobody denied. But it was not 9/11 which irked the average American, but the beatings of women on the streets of Kabul by the religious police.

We supported the Northern Alliance with airpower, and they sent the Taliban and Al Qaeda fleeing over the mountains. Now they are coming back. Did anyone expect something different to happen?

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

nobody denied

Speak for yourself.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

You keep up with the fantasy that the northern alliance are the good guys. Please, if there is one thing we must agree on, it is this: There are no good guys in Afghanistan. There are predators and there are victims.

We chased away one lot of predators and another lot moved in. But we did not change the circumstances of the victims. now the predators we chased away are attempting to oust the predators who replaced them. It's a turf war between several criminal gangs of murderous misogynists, but it is not and never was blacks hats and white hats.

We gave some of the victims temporary respite. But we declined to do anything that might have helped them in the long term and now the situation has degenerated to the point where there is nothing we can do either way.

Yes we failed. But we staying doesn't help any more. I don't understand what you think we're achieving by this.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Whoever said that the Northern Alliance would, if NATO forces left Afganistan, return to power in their regions.

I really am getting the feeling that there is a belief here that the US should never have dislodged the Taliban in 2001, and chased them into western Pakistan. The reason of course being that they were much more kind to women than the Northern Alliance tribal groups, the Tajiks. Swine all, even though the Taliban did not apparently get into rape, or am I wrong?

Who is for US and European immigration laws that permit Afgani women who have been subjected to crimes like rape to emigrate to America and Europe, especially Boston?

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 6)

I really am getting the feeling that there is a belief here that the US should never have dislodged the Taliban in 2001, and chased them into western Pakistan. The reason of course being that they were much more kind to women than the Northern Alliance tribal groups, the Tajiks. Swine all, even though the Taliban did not apparently get into rape, or am I wrong?

Oh FFS !!! No No NOOOOO.

what part of my comment "It's a turf war between several criminal gangs of murderous misogynists, but it is not and never was blacks hats and white hats." didn't you understand ?

They're all bastards. Okay. there are only predators and victims here. We replaced one set of predators with another. At no point did we deign to help the victims. We could have changed their circumstances, we could have created a civic infrastructure of justice and governmental institutions that might have reverted the culture of Afghanistan back to what it was in the early 70s when it was very progressive and forward looking.

But that was too much like hard work, it wasn't glamorous and involved spending money in Afghanistan on people and education as opposed to paying american corporates to "deliver" capital projects in such a way that nearly all of the money stayed in the US. We don't do "nation building", we do "shock and awe", it's more fun, more immediately satisfying and pleases the sponsors.

that's why nothing we have done has helped in any way. that's why now, nearly 10 years down track we're staring at a reality where the moment we leave, the country reverts back to what it was before. WE HAVE ACHIEVED NOTHING. and spent a lot of money and lives (US and Afghan) doing it, and you want to spend a lot more blood and money to carry on achieving nothing. At what point do we accept we screwed up. that the possibility of helping Afghanistan has gone and all we are doing is prolonging their agony.

Give it up, it's over

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

Who is for US and European immigration laws that permit Afgani women who have been subjected to crimes like rape to emigrate to America and Europe, especially Boston?

Me! Free movement of people to match free movement of capital and goods. It's only fair.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 6)

shergald:

Who is for US and European immigration laws that permit Afgani women who have been subjected to crimes like rape to emigrate to America and Europe, especially Boston?

I am for free migration, so yes. I think we would consider the consequences of our foreign policy more if the victims of it were allowed to move.

shergald:

I really am getting the feeling that there is a belief here that the US should never have dislodged the Taliban in 2001, and chased them into western Pakistan. The reason of course being that they were much more kind to women than the Northern Alliance tribal groups, the Tajiks. Swine all, even though the Taliban did not apparently get into rape, or am I wrong?

I would say you are wrong.

Speaking for myself, I believe that the US did the population of Afghanistan no services in 2001, and never intended too. Not because Tajiks are worse then the Taleban but because no state sends its armies to held civilian populations in foreign countries, except in dreams. So the US started another round of violence in a war-torn country, and the population paid the price.

The US and its allies are in Afghanistan for enrichment of war profiteers, for the Great game, for a combination of reasons, but never to help the population. Better to stop its part of the violence and pull out then to participate further in the civil war.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Oil was hypothesis ONE. Israel was hypothesis TWO. Given the number of right wing Likudnik Neocons in the US Department of Defense, and the US State Department, TWO often gets the nod. But the Military-Industrial Complex is seldom talked about.

So just how did the MIC emgineer this thing? That's where this third theory falls down. No answer just beliefs.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

There's no oil in Afghanistan. There's some strategic metals and a potential gas pipeline that will never actually happen in the real world, for a variety of reasons. But no oil to speak of.

Israel has no visible interests in Afghanistan, and while I'm fully prepared to believe that the Israeli wingnuts would be delighted at the thought of bombing some semi-random brown people, they simply don't have that kind of pull over US foreign policy.

So just how did the MIC emgineer this thing? That's where this third theory falls down. No answer just beliefs.

On which planet do you spend most of your time? Krugman, Taibbi and several others gave what basically amounts to blow-by-blow accounts of how the DC establishment sold itself on both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The influence of the mil-ind complex is a bit more subtle than the in-your-face bribes of AIPAC et al, but it is a lot more pervasive and, therefore, a good deal more pernicious. Cue Galbriath's New Industrial State:

A firm that is associated with the development of a new generation of fighter aircraft is in an admirable position to influence the design and equipment of the plane. It can have something to say on the mission for which it is adapted, the number of planes required, their deployment, and, by implication, on the choice of the enemy toward which it is directed. This will reflect the firm's own views, and, pari passu, its own needs. If the firm has been accorded a more explicit planning function, it helps to establish assumptions as to the strength and intentions of the probable enemy, in practise the U.S.S.R., the nature of the probable attack and of the resulting hostilities and the other factors on which procurement depends. In conjunction with other such planning, including, of course, that of public agencies, it helps to establish the official view of defense requirements and therewith of some part of the foreign policy. These will be a broad reflection of the firm's own goals; it would be eccentric to expect otherwise.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 06:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Oil refers to Iraq. Afganistan was a legitimate conflict to get at OBL and the Al Qaeda bunch.

Otherwise, we all live on this one planet, but sometimes the views from afar, like from Denmark are different than from the US or from Boston (Helen) which may still be part of the US.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 07:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

shergald:

Afganistan was a legitimate conflict to get at OBL and the Al Qaeda bunch.

War in Afghanistan (2001-present) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Afghanistan government responded through its embassy in Pakistan that the US had presented to the government of Afghanistan no evidence linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks and that the government of Afghanistan had no such evidence of its own. The Afghanistan government also stressed that bin Laden was a guest in their country. Pashtun and Taliban codes of behavior require that guests be granted hospitality and asylum.^[67] Before the onset of military hostilities, on October 7, 2001, the Taliban offered to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.^[68] This offer was rejected by the U.S., and the bombing of targets within Afghanistan by U.S. and British forces commenced the same day. On October 14, 2001, seven days into the U.S./British bombing campaign, the Taliban offered to surrender bin Laden to a third country for trial, if the bombing halted and they were shown evidence of his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. This offer was also rejected by Bush, who declared "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."^[69

Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stated that classified^[91] evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.^[92] The UK Government reached a similar conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks although the government report notes that the evidence presented is insufficient for a prosecutable case.^[93] Bin Laden initially denied involvement in the attacks. On September 16, 2001, bin Laden read a statement later broadcast by Qatar's Al Jazeera satellite channel denying responsibility for the attack.^[94]

Here's another contemporary source...

Noam Chomsky: The New War on Terror (October 24, 2001)

... On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. ...
...
The United States either is unable or unwilling to provide any evidence, any meaningful evidence. There was a sort of a play a week or two ago when Tony Blair was set up to try to present it. I don't exactly know what the purpose of this was. Maybe so that the US could look as though it's holding back on some secret evidence that it can't reveal or that Tony Blair could strike proper Churchillian poses or something or other. So the Wall Street Journal, for example, one of the more serious papers had a small story on page 12, I think, in which they pointed out that there was not much evidence and then they quoted some high US official as saying that it didn't matter whether there was any evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So why bother with the evidence? The more ideological press, like the New York Times and others, they had big front-page headlines. But the Wall Street Journal reaction was reasonable and if you look at the so-called evidence you can see why. But let's assume that it's true. It is astonishing to me how weak the evidence was. I sort of thought you could do better than that without any intelligence service [audience laughter]. In fact, remember this was after weeks of the most intensive investigation in history of all the intelligence services of the western world working overtime trying to put something together. And it was a prima facie, it was a very strong case even before you had anything. And it ended up about where it started, with a prima facie case. So let's assume that it is true. So let's assume that, it looked obvious the first day, still does, that the actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part. Whether they were involved or not nobody knows. It doesn't really matter much.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 04:34:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

Also:

Telegraph [UK]: Pakistan blocks bin Laden trial (04 Oct 2001)

A high-level delegation led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, head of Pakistan's most important Islamic party, the Jamaat-i-Islami, met Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, in secret on Monday. Omar agreed that bin Laden should be taken to Pakistan, where he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar.
The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal.
The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America. The secret deal was agreed after a meeting in Islamabad on Saturday at which Mulla Abdus Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's inter-service intelligence, and Qazi were present.

Allegedly Musharraf scuppered the plan, of which the US ambassador to Pakistan were made aware.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 06:38:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

Somehow, somewhere, a video came up in which OBL is seen and heard talking to an imam, discussing the Twin Tower attack. In it OBL states that he did not expect the towers to cone down, but only to destroy the sections above the level of the crash.

I think it was discovered in Afganistan after the invasion, although I might be wrong about that.

by shergald on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 07:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

You mean this?

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:
...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.^[68]
In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people.^[69]

Nevertheless,

The FBI lists bin Laden as one of the "10 Most Wanted" in connection with several incidents including the USS Cole bombing and the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The FBI's "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" poster does not specifically hang responsibility for 9/11 on bin Laden, instead it only states "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."^[56]

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:34:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

Wikipedia:

But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.^[68]

How is it possible to train people in non-specific terrorism and then do a big reveal just before they board?

"Hijack plane and fly it into the Twin Towers. Gotcha. Would you like me to pick up some milk while I'm out too?"

Apart from the storming the cockpit thing, and the using boxcutters thing, and the learning how to navigate a plane while dodging fighter aircraft [1] and crash it into a skyscraper thing - did they get any other clues?

[1] Which should have been there, obviously.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (3.50 / 2)

I think that's a mis-reading. The pilots would have known that they were going to be involved in flying and then crashing a plane. They needed to know that for the training; apparently they aroused a certain suspicion for not being interested in learning how to land so they were aware of that much at least.

The actual details, such as flights or targets, wouldn't need to be revealed much before the operation.

The rest wouldn't need to know anything other than they were there to carry out a task that would end in martyrdom. I wonder if they even knew what was happening when it happened.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 09:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

Who is for US and European immigration laws that permit Afgani women who have been subjected to crimes like rape to emigrate to America and Europe, especially Boston?

I am for open borders. Do you have any other straw men to throw up?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 4)

I just want to say I'm all for letting Afghan women move to the US and Europe, but don't make them go to Boston.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 06:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

BBC News - Newsnight - The Afghan women jailed for 'bad character'

A senior official in Afghanistan's Ministry for Women's Affairs told a recent UN workshop that about half of Afghanistan's 476 women prisoners were detained for "moral crimes".
That includes everything from running away from home, refusing to marry, marrying without their family's wishes, and "attempted adultery".
"In many cases women run away because they can't bear the domestic violence and then they are picked up and taken into custody for a long time," explains Nader Nadery, a commissioner at Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Jun 30th, 2010 at 08:05:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

We gave some of the victims temporary respite.

Not even that really. Instead of stoning, women face rape.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

Who made it that way? It was that way before we ever got there.

You mean 1979?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

How about the 1940's

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: Kabul: City Number One - Part 3

When you look at footage of the fighting in Helmand today everyone assumes it is being played out against an ancient background of villages and fields built over the centuries.
This is not true. If you look beyond the soldiers, and into the distance, what you are really seeing are the ruins of one of the biggest technological projects the United States has ever undertaken. Its aim was to use science to try and change the course of history and produce a modern utopia in Afghanistan. The city of Lashkar Gah was built by the Americans as a model planned city, and the hundreds of miles of canals that the Taliban now hide in were constructed by the same company that built the San Francisco Bay Bridge and Cape Canaveral.

never let desperation get in the way of judgement.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whe we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

shergald:

We will have come full circle. It's a conundrum.

more like a mobius strip...

i think it's worth 'not-winning', as fortunes in deathware and military promotions are in play.

winning less important than continuing...

prolonging ad nauseam much more lucrative.

afghans will put up with the talis, because they are not american/NATO.

if we are really in the business of using miltary force to emancipate women, maybe we should practice on countries less challenging than afghanistan, graveyard of empires, /snark.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. talibs fill a role corrupt gvts and warlords don't. it sucks to be an afghan woman, but sending in the cavalry to rescue them ain't never going to work, while it bleeds funds that could be so much better used.

" Nothing can bring you peace but yourself." R.W.Emerson

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 12:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

There are two possible analysies of this;-
1)They know they screwed up but can't admit it for some reason.

2)There are considerable advantages to those among the elites that this unwinnable war continuing as long as possible.

Taking the first as the sole problem, this will be about the poisonous politics in DC where the political consequences of a messy inconclusive end to the war would be far worse than simply allowing it to continue.

After all, to use Cheney's dismissive contempt for the armed forces, "they volunteered", which means they're expendable which means they're poor and the US has a lot of otherwise economically useless people who are now ideal camera opportunities where flags can be waved and politicians can "support" the troops and look patriotic. Is a billion a month too high a price for a 10 point approval boost ? It's not coming out of their pocket, so why not ?

If the Taliban really developed their offensive sufficiently to really hurt the forces (entirely possible imo) that might change things. And if they developed the ability to pursue asymmetric war on american soil that'd really hurt. But at the moment both sides are locked in a mutually politically useful stalemate. Win win.

The second involves a deep cynicism about the relationship between the US govt and military industrial complex and how war leads to arms contracts and security contracts in a way that peace simply doesn't. And how some of the money flowing around gets siphoned into the pockets of politicians and lobbyists to ensure the status quo continues.

Or, of course, both 1 & 2 are true.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:53:29 AM EST

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

You will of course have noted that I have not discussed the idea that they weren't aware that the war was unwinnable and was screwed up from the get-go.

Simply because I cannot entertain such a ridiculous idea.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 09:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Define "The West" please... (4.00 / 2)

They state

A Western withdrawal would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to a civil war that might suck in the local powers, including Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia.

Conspicuously not mentioned is China who also border Afghanistan. Or are they not a "local power" anymore? Since clearly none of these contries count as "Duh West" we have to ask ourselves, why is the Economist promoting a permanent war between the USA+UK and everybody else? And do they really think they can win it? What would it take for them to see that the UK's only hope is to change sides? Are the Americans going to be selling them oil and natural gas? Year, right. What a pathetic spectacle....like what you see on MI-5.

Nothing like a total idiot with a scrape of education for your pure smug certitude. I guess that's what the upper tiers of the British Education are designed to produce.

by PIGL on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 10:39:51 AM EST

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

European Tribune - Why we are in Afghanistan

How do we get the Serious People to admit that they were wrong and f'd up?

Opposition politicians might be persuaded by the argument that no votes are won in Afghanistan, it will continue downhill and only by pulling out directly as they enter office can they avoid be tarnished by their opponents mistakes (if they have supported the war earlier, it was only before they saw how gravely their opponents had mismanaged it). It of course gets more believable if we can show that votes can be won on opposing the war.

For politicians in power we must show that more votes are lost by staying. And something Nobody Could Have Foreseen (tm) has to happen (atrocities of war) so that the action can be motivated.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 11:40:03 AM EST

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

I think that economics would be sufficient. The reality is that most people don't care a lick about Afghanistan and few are still scared of the Osama Bin Laden boogieman. Were he caught/found there would be no problem whatsoever with leaving Afghanistan, not that I expect to see him found.

If we simply stand up and say that we can't afford it and that as much as we care about Afghani's we have to look after our own hides first, support could be found for the decision.

Nothing like self-interest to get things moving.

Will it happen, of course not. There are real reasons to be in Afghanistan, namely economics. The USA at least cannot afford to reabsorb its workforce or the paper corporate losses for all the military garbage we pay for. Also, the strategic territory expansion and all that.

Yes, empire bullshit at its finest.

by paving on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 01:03:56 PM EST

Pres. Koehler told us why, (none / 1)

and we all should be grateful for his honesty. So we know why. It's not helpful to pretend 'we' are there for the purported rather than the real (economic) reasons.

Mr Koehler began by saying that Germany was in [Afghanistan] with allies to ensure its security and that it was "good and proper" for these issues to be openly and robustly discussed.
He then added: "But my estimation is that, on the whole, we are on the way to understanding, even broadly in society, that a country of our size, with this orientation toward foreign trade and therefore also dependence on foreign trade, has to be aware that when in doubt in case of an emergency, military deployment is also necessary to protect our interests.
"For example, free trade routes, for example to prevent instability in a whole region, which certainly have a negative impact on our opportunities via trade, jobs and income. All of that ought to be discussed and I believe that we are not doing too badly."
The remarks appeared to be a major departure from the political orthodoxy on the Afghanistan mission, which says the Bundeswehr is there to protect Germany from terrorist groups.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/afghanistan/German-president-resigns-over-Afghan.6331182.jp

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 01:47:35 PM EST

Re: Pres. Koehler told us why, (4.00 / 3)

What trade routes used by Western producers, other than for heroine, run through Afghanistan? And how does the clusterfuck that is Western intervention all across the region maintain such trade routes?

The elites are mean-spirited, but Köhler was and is a bleating idiot.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pres. Koehler told us why, (4.00 / 4)

yeah. If he had said "we need to show we can kick someone's ass away from home, just to show we can, because this gives credibility to our trade route protection forces" that might have vaguely made sense.

But what he said was just silly.

And anyway, European countries are in Afghanistan pretty much only because they're scared of saying no to Washington.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pres. Koehler told us why, (none / 1)

Well, he was speaking in generalities, and about the region and perhaps not Afghanistan specifically. And maybe not a 'trade route' but there is an oil pipeline route through Afghanistan that the US/UK 'Great Game' elite have been dreaming/planning for decades.

But, yes, obviously he's an idiot. A useful idiot for the left, since he provides evidence of imperialism directly from the mouth of the elite. That's the big picture of his comment.

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pres. Koehler told us why, (4.00 / 2)

Pipeline economics - why the Afghan pipeline will NOT be built

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 04:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pres. Koehler told us why, (none / 1)

Nice job on that!

The important generality is that there is a 'Great Game' going on between/among 'the West,' Russia and China. 'The West' is working hard to decisively control oil and gas supply routes, because that would benefit the West economically and strategically, and that effort plays an overarching, defining role in our Gulf & central Asian wars.

Likely that big mess of pipelines, pipedreams and so on is what Koehler was 'inappropriately' and very generally referring to.

Every time I've visited Iran, energy analysts stress the total "interdependence of Asia and Persian Gulf geo-ecopolitics." What they mean is the ultimate importance to various great and regional powers of Asian integration via a sprawling mass of energy pipelines that will someday, somehow, link the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, South Asia, Russia and China.

From 'Pipelineistan goes Af-Pak'
By Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KE14Ag01.html

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (none / 0)

"unsustainable" social model"

Just curious. Is Sweden having a problem? As the model of how a social democracy ought to function, I would be surprised if your response is 'yes."

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:39:24 PM EST

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

"Swedish socalism" is actually social democracy, and this text about the party - "The Movement" - is also a text about our political tradition

NOTE 1: The social democrats are not in power right now, 2006-2010. But four years for the new right-wing coalition is noway near enough for overturning 100 years of social democracy. From a global point of view, Sweden is definitely a social democracy society. We still have the world's highest taxes.
NOTE 2: In Sweden, contrary to the USA, big government (left-wing) is red and small government (right-wing) is blue.
Sweden don't have and have never had communism. There is a somewhat communistic party, but people don't vote for them very much.
When people talk about "swedish socialism", they are talking about social democracy and the party the social democrats. People inside the party just call it "The Movement".
The social democrats received between 40-55% of the votes in all the elections between 1940 and 1988.
High consumer prices, high salaries and high taxes. People trust that the whole system has been worked out by someone who knows. Swedes don't argue. It's about serenity. They continue working no matter how high the taxes get. It's about being a part of the system, the society. If you remain in society everything will be fine.
If someone says "I believe that people can and should take bigger responsibility for their own lives", the one who replies with "but what about the ones who can't? We should take care of everyone" will always win the discussion. Not doing something for everyone is like doing something the half way, it's like a broken car, while social democracy is like a Volvo.
http://temporarystockholmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/social-democracy.html

So the Swedes flirted with greed then decided that taking care of all Swedes is the thing to do. Here's one country that defeated Reagan-Thathcerism, and are the better for it.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 03:48:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

Do we get this kind of Swedish thinking from the school system or maybe from church sermons? I'd really like to know.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 05:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

Unusually strong labour unions, which is probably a result partly of social geography and partly of industrialising fifty years later than most of the rest of Europe. From the end of the first world war and until the 1980's or so, Scandinavia was for all intents and purposes run by organised labour. In fact, even today it is hard to see where the public sector ends and the private sector begins.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 07:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (none / 1)

From my understanding, half of all Swedes work for the government, half in the private sector, but there is a 91% union membership rate.

Bravo. Here in the US, the membership rate has dwindled down to maybe 11%. But our unions have not been as socially conscious as in Europe. They have been mired in greed as much as the corporate execs, to their own detriment. And I admit that as a former chief steward at my last place of work.

by shergald on Mon Jun 28th, 2010 at 07:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

And I might add, there are workers, toiling for less, without health benefits, who claim pride about not belonging to a union. They comprise a significant component of the Republican party that has used front issues, like abortion, welfare (welfare queens, free loaders), covert racism, and fear of "socialism (read communism)" as reasons for rejecting unions.

How dumb can one be?

by shergald on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why we are in Afghanistan (4.00 / 3)

The myth of self-reliance is a powerful incentive.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 29th, 2010 at 08:48:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why we are in Afghanistan | 92 comments (92 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]